Elections and Electoral Systems

Which one of the following is NOT mentioned in paragraph 2?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

Look at the word that in paragraph 1. The word that in the passage refers to

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

Which one of the following is not true about modern Americans?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

What does the author of the passage think about the institution of Electoral College?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

In paragraph 4, the author’s description of the United States at the time of the nation’s coming into existence mentions all of the following, except

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

Based on the information given in the passage, what can be inferred?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country's democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state's electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its winner-take-all nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today's political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people's voices that matter most.

The word ‘anachronistic’ in the passage is closest in meaning to

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

Based on the information given in paragraph 1, what can be inferred about the Electoral College?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

Which of the following details best supports the main idea of the passage?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

What cannot be inferred from the given passage?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country’s democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state’s electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its ‘winner-take-all’ nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today’s political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country’s federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people’s voices that matter most.

According to the passage, which of the following is NOT a problem with the Electoral College system?

The manner in which Americans select their President has always been criticized by both Americans and people living in other parts of the world. For one thing, the US Presidential Election is nothing short of a farce. It is based on a complex, anachronistic setup called the Electoral College. So what exactly is the Electoral College? Well, you cannot define it in one or two words. It is a complex and often problematic system that distinguishes the United States from other democracies of the world. The Electoral College is different from the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom or Japan. It is also different from the system of direct popular vote South Koreans use to elect their President.  Because the Electoral College does not ensure the full participation of all citizens in the election some people believe that it is a handicap to the country's democratic process. According to them its elimination is essential to elevate the United States into the world of modern democracy where energetic and involved electorate selects presidents who are well aware of the needs and wants of the citizens who vote for them.

The current Presidential Election system in the US is so complex that most citizens of the country are unaware of the way it works. To put it simply, the election system in the US is a two-stage process. The country has 50 states and each of them is allotted a number of electoral votes. These electoral votes are used only to elect the president and correspond to the number of Congressional members in each state. As a result, states with small populations may have three or four electoral votes, while large states may have dozens. On Election Day each state holds its own presidential vote and within each state, one presidential candidate wins the popular vote, which is the vote by the citizens. This candidate who wins the popular vote in a state also wins all of that state's electoral votes. To become the President a candidate has to win the largest number of electoral votes. Therefore, it is crucial for a candidate to win the popular vote in states with the most electoral votes.

There are several problems with this system. First, presidential candidates know that they only need electoral votes to win the election, so they tend to campaign only in large states that have more electoral votes, creating a gulf between themselves and a significant fraction of the electorate. Furthermore, many people who support political minorities do not bother to vote at all because they know that the candidate they favor will not win in their state anyway. Both situations reduce citizen representation significantly. The final problem with the Electoral College is even more serious. Because of its winner-take-all nature, the Electoral College can actually elect a candidate who received fewer popular votes than his/her opponent, altogether thwarting the purpose of the election in the first place. This unfortunate circumstance has come about several times. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more popular votes than Republican candidate George W Bush. However, Bush was elected President because he had more electoral votes.

Although the system of Electoral College looks ineffective in today's political and economic circumstances, there was a time when it was necessary. For one thing, the Electoral College has its origins in the country's federal system. When America was established there was little sense of national identity among its people. In fact, people usually identified themselves as citizens of their states and few bothered to call themselves Americans. In those early days each state functioned more or less like an independent country. And hence the founding fathers of the country felt that the decisions affecting the entire nation should be taken at the state level. Furthermore, the United States has always been a very large country. Therefore in those days when the communication and transportation systems were still in their nascent stages, running a nationwide election campaign was quite difficult. So the Electoral College was provided as a solution.

None of these factors are significant now. Over the years, Americans have developed a very strong sense of national identity and are now keen on playing a direct role in the selection of their leaders. Communication and transportation systems, too, have advanced significantly so that it is now easy to conduct nationwide political campaigns. Needless to say, many people have started insisting that the institution of Electoral College should be abandoned. They argue that in its place, the United States should adopt a modern system that would promote, not discourage, the participation of all citizens in the electoral process. In fact, such a method is essential to remind the presidential candidates that it is the people's voices that matter most.